• pukeko
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      If that’s the case, I’m less saucy, but my understanding was that the numbers were based on the release month. (Noting for emphasis that I cannot overstate the absolutely minimal nature of my irritation and that it doesn’t detract even a whisker from my appreciation of Libreoffice! It’s almost, but not quite, tongue in cheek.)

        • pukeko
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          It appears that it is. The first version, February-based, is 24.2. The next scheduled version is 24.8, scheduled for release in August.

          • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Yeah you are right. For some reason I thought I had seen 24.1 but i was mistaken. Stupid naming scheme this since 24.2 and 24.8 sound like v2 and v8 of the 24.x release. Should have just used 24.mm just like the rest of the foss world does and as you suggested it should be

            • pukeko
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Upvoting not because you agreed with me but because of the relief of discovering my flagrantly innocuous frustration might have a kernel of justification.

    • Sentau@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      They aren’t using semantic numbering though. They using ‘yy.m.patch’ instead of ‘yy.mm.patch’ as the scheme so it looks like semantic without being semantic which is causing all the confusion. The next release is shown as 24.8